Women

According to the Pali Canon, it is said that someone can be born as a woman in one life and then as a man in the next, etc.  But, nowhere in the 500 plus Jataka lives (though not an exhaustive list of Buddha’s lives), nor elsewhere in the Pali Canon, does Sakyamuni appear as a woman (although it is sometimes inferred that he must have been a woman at one time or another).  Jones writes, “The most striking single fact is that, in spite of the tremendous diversity of forms which the bodhisatta assumes, he never once appears as a woman or even as a female animal.  Even when he appears as a tree-spirit or fairy, he is always masculine.” (20)  His close friend Ananda who appears in many of his lives, appears only once as a woman (Jones, 113).  Going further, Jones contrasts the doctrine of the Jatakas with the Pali Canon in general:

“But whereas the corrupting influence of an evil woman is the norm in the Jatakas, virtuous women being merely exceptions which prove the rule, the possibility of a friend’s becoming a corrupting influence is so remote that it is hardly ever mentioned.  This differs from the canonical position.  There, unquestionably, sex and marriage are bad, but so are love and friendship, since these involve one in personal attachments and painful (or potentially painful) emotions.  The only love which the canon can bless is that which is quite detached and general; a ‘boundless friendly mind for all creatures’.” (115)

Commenting on one of these virtuous women, Jones writes, “That rare thing in the Jataka stories, a virtuous woman, owes her virtue to merit acquired in a former birth- as a male!” (43)  In the Pali Canon itself, the depiction of women is hardly better:  “…yet, women never tire of sexual intercourse and childbearing (GS I 72) and they never sit in court or embark on business because ‘they are uncontrolled, envious, greedy and weak in wisdom’ (GS II 92f).” (Jones, 78).  Regarding the establishment of an order for nuns, Jones writes, “When Ananda prevailed upon Gotama to allow a separate Order for women, he is reported to have been very gloomy about this.  It would, he said, halve the length of time for which the Dhamma[xvi] would be preserved in pure form.” (Jones, 77; GS IV 184f).  In the Vinaya Pitaka (Book of Discipline V), a similar prediction is made by Sakyamuni, when addressing Ananda: 

“If, Ananda, women had not obtained the going forth from home into homelessness in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, the Brahma-faring, Ananda, would have lasted long, true dhamma would have endured for a thousand years.  But since, Ananda, women have gone forth…in the dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Truth-finder, now, Ananda, the Brahma-faring will not last long, true dhamma will endure only for five hundred years.” (356)

Since women did “go forth” and five hundred years have already passed, the question arises, is the above canonical passage false, or is it true in saying that “true dhamma” will only endure for five hundred years?  If we say it is false, then there is falsity in the Pali Canon.  If we say it is true, then it is still false, since five hundred years have already passed, and thus “true dhamma” would no longer be around.  In this same text, the Buddha compares the influence of women to mildew:  “Even, Ananda, as when the disease known as mildew attacks a whole field of rice that field of rice does not last long, even so, Ananda, in whatever dhamma and discipline women obtain the going forth…that Brahma-faring will not last long.” (356)  Also in the above text (Book of Discipline V), the eight conditions for allowing the women to join, are spelled out.  Among these, here are two examples, which highlight women’s subordinate role to men in Buddhism:

“A nun who has been ordained (even) for a century must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day.  And this rule is to be honoured, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed during her life.” (354); “From to-day admonition of monks by nuns is forbidden, admonition of nuns by monks is not forbidden.  This rule too is to be honoured, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed during her life.” (355)

Elaborating on this basic attitude, Tibetan (Tantric) Buddhism has taken it to more extreme extents.  Victor and Victoria Trimondi, in their book “The Shadow of the Dalai Lama:  Sexuality, Magic, and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism,” devote a large portion of their 816 page volume (in German) to the topic of misogyny:

“In light of the complexity of the topic, we have resolved to proceed deductively and to preface the entire book with the core statement of our research in the form of a hypothesis.  Our readers will thus be set on their way with a statement whose truth or falsity only emerges from the investigations which follow.  The formulation of this hypothesis is necessarily very abstract at the outset.  Only in the course of our study does it fill out with blood and life, and unfortunately, with violence and death as well.  Our core statement is as follows:

The mystery of Tantric Buddhism consists in the sacrifice of the feminine principle and the manipulation of erotic love in order to attain universal androcentric power”

(this book is not currently available in hardcopy in English, but the entire English translation of the German can be found online:  http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm)

Coming back to Theravada Buddhism, Jones explains the doctrinal gymnastics behind the scenes of the Jatakas and the Pali Canon proper, related to women:

“Why such an onslaught on the fair sex?  I am convinced that JS 61 gives us the most reliable clue to an answer.  The stories are designed mainly to discourage young men from family life and sexual involvement.  Now, as we have seen, the canonical reason for turning away from the entanglements of family life is that these are “fetters”, nourishing the illusion of “self” and of attachment to other “selves”; only in the detachment of the realisation of anatta (selflessness) can true peace be found.  We have also seen that the Jatakas studiously avoid the doctrine of anatta, since this would undermine their basic premise: that the same person moves on from life to life….Thus women pay very dearly for the Jatakas’ need to avoid the anatta doctrine.  In becoming the scapegoat, they must have found it very hard to retain any self-respect.  A Theravada woman, bred on the Jatakas, must have felt the dice were very heavily loaded against her- as must a layman who hoped that his marriage, against all the odds, would turn out well.” (99)

Instead of rebelling against Buddhism though, many women in Buddhist societies accept their lower status as something they deserve based on supposed karma from previous lives.  Cleo Odzer, in the book “Buddhism and Abortion,” writes, “Typically, women in Thailand are undervalued in respect to men, a situation endorsed by the Buddhist religion…”(33), and in surveying women in a Bangkok slum area, it was discovered that “Mostly, the women accepted their lot in the Buddhist belief that they were born ‘as a woman because of bad karma or a lack of sufficient good merit.’”(35)

In the Bible women are not seen as “mildew,” incapable of doing business, of lesser status than even junior men, the cause of men being defiled, and deserving of any suffering they may be facing.  Women and men do have different roles and responsibilities in the Bible, but the inheritance for believers in God’s economy is equal:  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”  (Galatians 3: 27- 29)  In the book of Proverbs chapter 31, written by King Lemuel’s mother, the virtuous woman is praised for being wise in business dealings, being clothed in strength and honor, having words of wisdom on her lips, and being trusted by her husband.

Meditation

Buddhist meditation is often presented as something neutral-- just meditation, as opposed to being a “religious” activity.  People from various worldview backgrounds are encouraged to try it, on the assumption that it’s just a kind of mind training-- just as physical exercise is body training.  This is an attraction for someone who just wants to have a unique, peaceful, or meaningful experience without necessarily buying into the doctrines of the Buddha.  But how neutral is meditation really?

In a rarely referred to portion of the Pali canon, a meditation time gone haywire is reported:

“Indeed there was one occasion so damaging to the Buddha’s reputation as a ‘peerless charioteer of men’ that it is hard to think it would have been invented.  I have never seen it referred to in any of the books on Buddhism I have read.  In KS V 284, we read that the Buddha had commended ‘the unlovely’ as a subject for meditation before he himself went off for a fourteen-day retreat.  On his return, he found the Order sadly diminished because so many of the monks, contemplating ‘the unlovely’ had ‘as to this body…worried about it, felt shame and loathing for it, and sought for a weapon to slay themselves’- and had in fact, committed suicide.  Ananda suggests that in future it might be better if the Buddha ‘would teach some other method’ of meditation.  Gotama replies with this suggestion and advises his monks to base their meditation on their breathing in future.” (Jones, 76)

To this day, ‘the unlovely’ (such as a human corpse) is still a valid object of Buddhist meditation, although other types of meditation, such as focusing on breathing, are far more common.  The above canonical passage raises the question of Sakyamuni’s omniscience (which is claimed for him in other canonical passages).  Did he know the monks would commit suicide, and gave them this harsher form of meditation anyway, or did he not know, and thus was not omniscient (this latter view is more commonly held today). 

Even in the more standard types of meditation, such as focusing on one’s breathing, or observing one’s thoughts as though they were not one’s own thoughts (being detached from the concept of “self” and “objectively” observing the thoughts), there are dangers.  Rahula nonetheless encourages such meditation:  “Try to examine it as if you are observing it from the outside, without any subjective reaction, as a scientist observes some object.  Here, too, you should not look at it as ‘my feeling’ or ‘my sensation’ subjectively, but only look at it as ‘a feeling’ or ‘a sensation’ objectively.  You should forget again the false idea of ‘I.” (73)  In his chapter dealing with “Meditation on Breathing,” Paravahera Vajiranana relates Vipassana[xvii] meditation to breathing:

“At the moment of insight he breathes in, breathes out, setting free the mind from the idea of permanence by contemplating impermanence, from the idea of happiness by contemplating painfulness, from the idea of self by contemplating non-ego, from the idea of delight by contemplating repulsion, from passion by contemplating detachment, from cause of origination by contemplating cessation, from clinging by contemplating renunciation.” (255)

Also related to a breathing meditation, Vajiranana writes, “Thus in these two stages the bodily element of respiration is said to be completely tranquilized.  It is with a view to attaining this state that ‘he practises mindfulness of breathing in and out’” (243)  In this instance, the goal of breathing is not breathing!  In a footnote, and based on Visuddhimagga[xviii] 283, Vajiranana points out, “There are eight states in which there is no breathing:  within the mother’s womb, when one is drowned in water, in unconscious beings, in the dead, in the fourth Jhana[xix], in the unconscious form-world, in the formless world, and in Nirodha-samapatti, the attainment of the cessation of all feelings and perceptions” (243).  Ernest Valea in his online article points out some further dangers with Vipassana meditation: 

“…the experiences that accompany Buddhist contemplation on the mental states (citta samapatti) can be explained as misperceptions of the surrounding reality due to the imposition of an abnormal way of functioning on the senses and mind: 

‘As meditators passively watch their own mental states come and go without trying to control them, these begin to fluctuate more and more rapidly and unpredictably.  After a while this chaotic activity creates the strong impression that the mental events are springing into life on their own, from some separate source, rather than the observer’s own mind.  As meditators persist with this practice, they also notice that there is a definite separation between the mental events being observed and the mind that is doing the observing.  As meditation progresses still further, both the mental events and the observing mind begin to seem alien and impersonal, as if they do not really belong to the observer.  At about this point the meditator’s sense of “self” becomes confused and weakened, and finally it disappears entirely for brief periods of time… (E. Hillstrom, Testing the Spirits, IVP, 1995, p. 114-115)’” (www.comparativereligion.com/Buddhism.html)

When a person becomes a “third person” observer of themselves, and even renounces the idea of “self”, it is like relinquishing the steering wheel and sitting in the passenger seat.   This presents the possibility of outside spirits entering in and having a very real and dangerous influence, even if it’s “only” deception.  Why does a person have to move into an altered state of consciousness, in order to accept the “higher truths?”  Would we not be suspicious if a real estate agent told us we needed to take mind altering drugs before appreciating the full value of the house being sold?

The ultimate goal of meditation, canonically speaking, is nirvana- freedom from suffering via the non-existence of the individual.  Many meditators who try Buddhist meditation at the basic levels, do not have this as their goal.  Their goal may be inner peace, mental health, or just to experience something unique.  Nonetheless, travelling farther along the pathway of meditation, when the stated goal is nirvana, meditators become more and more detached from their feelings, and become spiritually leprous.  A person with physical leprosy is someone who has lost the sense of touch (and thus is in danger when leaning on a hot stove, not having an impulse to pull away, etc.).  A person who becomes completely detached from emotions becomes spiritually leprous, and may appear to be quite peaceful, but is also unaware of emotions which give needed warning and provide other healthy functions.

There are said to be states of bliss and even supernormal abilities attainable along the pathway of meditation, but according to canonical teachings, these are supposed to be rejected as distracting from the ultimate purpose- that of complete cessation (nirvana).  Thus the “positive” experiences of meditation are mere “lures” leading to the “hook” of cessation.    Speaking of the highest level of meditation (Nirodha-samapatti), Vajiranana writes, “But that which is experienced in the Nirodha-samapatti is the state of Nirvana, namely the cessation of all mental activities, which is comparable to that of final Nirvana.  The final Nirvana is called ‘Khandha-pari-nibbana,’ the complete cessation of the five aggregates, and is attained by the Arhat at his death” (467).

Apart from the dangers of meditation on a personal level, meditation does not deliver the objective standard it claims.  Meditation is sometimes labeled as scientific, because in it, the claims of the Buddha are said to be experienceable.  However, as mentioned before, the meditators are instructed beforehand in what they can expect to experience.  This expectation removes objectivity since it conditions people to generate what is expected.  If the instructor tells them they can expect to see previous lives, they are already predisposed towards that.  Also, it is not objective, because there are “wrong” or heretical views described in the Pali Canon.  In other words, if someone meditates and experiences something heretical- such as “I do have an eternal soul,” this will be rejected.

Buddhist meditation takes people who are relational by nature, and makes their mind more like a machine.  Even when the meditation is “spreading compassion to all beings”, the focus is on one’s own ability to direct the mind to this challenge, and the compassion is meant to be a detached one.  When the meditation is a concentration upon one object, to the exclusion of all other thoughts, this silences the voice of conscience calling us to a relationship with God, and sets the mind instead on a path toward increased detachment and isolation.  Proverbs chapter 18, verse 1 states, “A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment.”  In isolation one’s own desires may be accomplished, but this situation can be compared to a child who would reject the care of loving parents who provide good food and friendship, and wants to instead go live in the forest- rejecting offers of food, rejecting clothing, rejecting offers for education, etc.  Such a child would have difficulty surviving and would eventually lose the ability even to communicate with the parents.  Meditation in the Bible means to consider God’s principles and character, spending time with God.  It’s a relational process of God “feeding” His children and communicating with them, taking away the burdens in life and providing wisdom.

Science

This is the topic which brings to light Sakyamuni’s claims to omniscience (or the Pali Canon’s claims on his behalf).  How credible is the Pali Canon as a book of facts?  If Sakyamuni Buddha did not inspire these writings either directly or indirectly, where is the standard by which truth is measured?  And, if it is claimed that the Pali Canon was inspired by the Buddha why does it contain so many factual errors?  If the Pali Canon is a mix of truth and error, entrusting one’s destiny to its teachings would be like entrusting oneself to a doctor who prescribes both good and harmful medicines-- a real gamble.  All of the scriptural quotations in this science section are from the Pali Canon proper, not its commentary.

In the Digha Nikaya (Dialogues of the Buddha III; 137-139), are listed the 32 marks of one who is supposed to become either a Buddha or a universal ruler.  Among these marks, it says he must have 40 teeth [as a baby! - the time when such an assessment is made (Dialogues of the Buddha II; pp. 13-18)].  Ordinarily children have only half that amount- 20 teeth.  A mature adult will have 32 teeth total (assuming they didn’t play too much hockey), or 28 teeth if the four wisdom teeth are removed.  Fitting eight extra teeth into the jaw of an adult would be quite a feat, but fitting 20 extra teeth into a baby’s jaw would be a real stretch- both of the jaw and of it’s credibility!

Among the 32 marks, another one is that the potential universal ruler or Buddha must have a large tongue.  Just how large?  In the Majjhima Nikaya (Middle Length Sayings II), a brahman named Sela came to talk with the Buddha and was looking for the 32 marks on him…”Then the Lord, having put out his tongue, stroked it backwards and forwards over both his ears and he stroked it backwards and forwards over both his nostrils and he covered the whole dome of his forehead with his tongue.” (335).  Wow.  Although there are many statues of the Buddha with various expressions, and in various postures, I’ve never seen one highlighting this aspect of his anatomy, and yet this is canonical.

When responding to Ananda’s question about the cause of an earthquake (Gradual Sayings IV; pp. 208-210), the Buddha gives eight reasons.  The first is a natural explanation relating to the structure of the earth, while in the next seven reasons the Buddha says the earth responds with quaking when various “enlightened” ones make monumental accomplishments.  In the first reason for earthquakes, we see some real differences between what he says and what modern science knows about the structure of the earth and the causes of earthquakes:  “Since, Ananda, this great earth rests on water and the water rests on wind and the wind subsists in space; what time the great winds blow, they cause the water to quake, and the quaking of the water causes the earth to quake.  This, Ananda, is the first cause, the first reason, of a great earthquake becoming manifest.”

This example and some of the following examples, demonstrate a lack of correspondence with “the way things are” (the kind of insight the Buddha claimed to provide).  These are not just examples of miracles, which would have to be examined on an individual basis according to the evidence for or against them.  Rather, they are examples of “reality claims”, which can be tested against modern and non-controversial knowledge of our world (such as the layout of the continents, the height of the tallest mountain, the size of the oceans, etc.).

In the Dialogues of the Buddha III, a description is given of human ancestors who lived to be 80,000 years old, but gradually through various vices, their life-spans were reduced to only ten years.  At that time it is alleged that these humans married at five years of age, and presumably conceived children at least by the age of nine if not earlier (since at age nine “old age” would have already set in).  These are clearly referred to as humans in this text, and not monkeys.  Then, with an increase in moral living, the humans are said to increase their life-spans once again.  If this story is only allegorical, why does the text refer to a well known city as being part of this history/prophecy:  “Among such humans the Benares of our day will be named Ketumati…”  (73).  Also, if it is allegorical, so is the prediction of the future Buddha Metteyya, who is supposed to appear when human life-spans are back to 80,000 years.   

In another “reality claim” coming from the mouth of the one who “can fall into no error” (Dialogues of the Buddha III, 25), the Buddha says that there are fish in the great ocean, which are anywhere from 100- 500 yojanas long: 

“And again, monks, the great ocean is the abode of great beings; these beings are there:  the timis, the timingalas, the timitimingalas, asuras, nagas, gandhabbas.  There are in the great ocean individualities a hundred yojanas (long), individualities two hundred…three hundred…four hundred…five hundred yojanas (long).”  (Book of Discipline V, 333)

According to the Pali Text Society Dictionary, one yojana is said to be equal to 7 miles.  That means a fish which is 500 yojanas long would be 3500 miles long.  That’s quite a claim, considering that this distance would be about 700 miles longer than the USA is wide (west to east)!  Also, it would be quite a disproportional fish since the deepest spot in the world’s oceans is about 7 miles deep, with the average depth being about 3 miles.  

For one who claims to omnisciently describe things “as they are” whether in the spiritual or the physical realm, it seems not too much to ask that he would be able to diagnose physical ailments and prescribe suitable cures.  In the fourth volume of the Book of Discipline, there are a number of stories which make it plain that the Buddha’s knowledge does not even match up to modern standards, much less omniscience.  In one such case the Buddha puts his approval on consuming raw flesh and blood from swine:

“Now at that time a certain monk had an (sic) non-human affliction.  Teachers and preceptors, although nursing him, were unable to get him well.  He, having gone to the swine’s slaughter-place, ate raw flesh and drank raw blood, and his non-human affliction subsided.  They told this matter to the Lord.  He said: ‘I allow, monks, when one has a non-human affliction, raw flesh and raw blood.’” (274) 

“A non-human affliction” here may refer to demon-possession as the footnote for this passage points out.  The cure approved of by the Buddha, is to let the “non-human” spirit (a.k.a. demon) indulge itself in raw flesh and blood.  Is there any disease for which this would actually be a wise practice? 

Why didn’t the Buddha cast out such a foul oppressor as Jesus Christ often did?  In another contrast to the ministry of Jesus Christ, whose healing was often described using the word “immediately,” the Buddha gives permission for various remedies, which are often followed by the words, “he got no better” (278-279).  Following such incidents is another passage showing the Buddha’s lack of appropriate remedies:

“’I allow, monks, a piece of cloth for tying over the sore.’  The sore itched.  ‘I allow you, monks, to sprinkle it with mustard-powder.’  The sore festered.  ‘I allow you, monks, to make a fumigation.’  The flesh of the sore stood up.  ‘I allow you, monks, to cut it off with a piece of salt-crystal.’  The sore did not heal.” (279) 

When someone is so much in the dark regarding physical realities, why should we trust him concerning much weightier, eternally significant, spiritual realities? 

Lastly, because the theory of evolution seems to align itself to Buddhism pretty well (no need for a Creator), does this mean Buddhism is therefore scientific?  Firstly, the Buddha didn’t explain ultimate origins and said that speculating about origins is one of the useless endeavors in life (since such speculation doesn’t lead to Nirvana).  But, also if there is no Creator, how can we expect our world to have any morals (or any karmic justice), or any beauty if everything came into being through random, mutated, impersonal chance?  Apart from the lack of cohesion between evolution and Buddhism, there is the more fundamental problem- evolution is still a theory- and after all these years since Darwin’s “discovery”, the evidence for evolution is not increasing, but decreasing.  The famous line-up of monkeys to men, for example, have been shown to be hoaxes, or completely ape, or completely human.  The missing links are still missing.  The website www.answersingenesis.org has articles, audios, and videos, presented by Ph.D. creation scientists, offering evidence in support of a Creator of this world.  To someone raised with evolutionary thinking, a Creator may sound “unscientific”, but the evidence is there.  To dismiss this evidence without a fair examination would itself be unscientific.  Should we accept something just because it is the opinion of our age or in agreement with our moral preferences in life?  An objective person would be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, even if that means to God.         

God

In Jataka 543, questions are asked concerning a Creator[xx]:  “Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?  Why does he not to all give happiness. [sic]” (Jones, 144). The agnosticism/atheism in Buddhism and emphasis on self-effort, claim for humanity a jurisdiction all their own.  Suffering that is so evident in this world is often given as the reason for rejecting a loving and powerful God.  The book of Job in the Bible addresses the problem of apparent injustices in this world.  By making a judgement about their circumstances, people presume to know all that can be known about the situation.  Job had a similar complaint, because from his perspective, he couldn’t see any justice in what he was facing.  In response, God asked Job four chapters worth of questions (Job 38-41), which made Job realize how limited his knowledge really is.  Sitting in judgment on God is presuming to know what is right based on our finite and limited perspective.  What knowledge does such a person have, that the Creator has not yet considered? 

The vanity in this world should turn us towards our Creator for direction and renewal, rather than supposing we can handle the problems on our own.  Jesus taught his disciples their need to humble themselves before God:  ^“Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,

and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 18: 2-3).  What we see in this world oftentimes is unjust- the wicked prospering, the “innocent” facing trouble, etc., but we need to know the perspective of eternity, which includes a judgment day in which God will judge the world in righteousness.  In Buddhism, the question of God’s existence is placed in the category of vain philosophical speculation-- supposing that this question does not help a person end suffering through Nirvana.  Thankfully, knowing God does not lead us to Nirvana (non-existence).  Also, considering Sakyamuni’s lack of omniscience, it is hardly advisable to trust in his speculations about what is or is not a worthy pursuit.  If an appliance in our house is not functioning properly, we turn to the owner’s manual or maybe call the maker of that appliance.  Similarly, God who made us has the answers to life’s dilemmas.

Conclusion

Looking at Buddhism plainly like this, if Buddhism were a journey, it would be a journey in which the road map contains known false claims, the “discoverer” of this journey is no longer around to offer any help, and ultimately one is extinguished when arriving at the destination.  Although Buddhism is a fascinating system, it leads people along a pathway away from the God who loves them, away from incorruptible everlasting life, and thus away from what we were made for- a life washed of our sins and relating to our Maker- made possible not by “earning it”, but through Jesus Christ taking our punishment onto Himself on the cross.  To reject this is to reject a true road map to heaven[xxi], help for the journey, and a guide who will not fail us.  To acknowledge and accept this is to begin a relationship of trust with our Maker.  "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.  He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”  (John 3: 16-18).

References

Childers, R.C.  (1979).  A Dictionary of the Pali Language.  New Delhi:  Cosmo Publications.

Gogerly, D.J.  (1885).  The Kristiyani Prajnapti or The Evidences and Doctrines of the Christian Religion in three parts.  Colombo:  Christian Vernacular Education Society.

Herman, A.L.  (1996).  Two Dogmas of Buddhism.  In Pali Buddhism Hoffman, F.J., Mahinda, D. (Eds.)  Surrey:  Curzon Press.

Jones, J.G.  (1979).  Tales and Teachings of the Buddha:  The Jataka Stories in relation to the Pali Canon.  London:  George Allen & Unwin.

Keown, D.  (2000).  Buddhism:  A very short introduction.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Odzer, C.  (1998).  Abortion and Prostitution in Bangkok.  In Buddhism and Abortion.  Keown, D. (Ed.).  Great Britain:  Macmillan Press Ltd.

Rahula, W.  (1999).  What the Buddha Taught.  Bangkok:  Haw Trai Foundation.

Rhys Davids, T.W. & Stede, W. (1966).  The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary.  London:  Luzac & Company, Ltd.

The Debate of King Milinda:  An Abridgement of The Milinda Panha.  (1998)  Pesala, B. (Ed.)  Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pte. Ltd.   

The Holy Bible: New King James Version (1991 printing).  Nashville:  Thomas Nelson Inc.

The Pali Canon:  Pali Text Society Version.  Abbreviations of Pali Text Society books, with Pali titles in parentheses: V = Book of Discipline (Vinaya Pitaka); GS = Gradual Sayings (Anguttara Nikaya); D = Dialogues of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya); KS = Kindred Sayings (Samyutta Nikaya); MLS = Middle Length Sayings (Majjhima Nikaya); JS(S) = Jataka Stories (Jataka).

Trimondi, V. & Trimondi, V.  (1999)  Der Schatten des Dalai Lama:  Sexualitaet, Magie und Politik im tibetischen Buddhismus.  Duesseldorf:  Patmos- Verlag.

Vajiranana, P. (1987).  Buddhist Meditation in Theory and Practice:  A General Exposition According to the Pali Canon of the Theravada School.  Kuala Lumpur:  Buddhist Missionary Society.